Data. Analysis. Cheeky Theological Reflections.If you don't ask the right questions, you'll end up solving the wrong problems

February 15, 2019

We may be a United Church, but we are definitely not a uniform church. In 2011, there were about 3,000 congregations: 1,500 were single-point pastoral charges, and 1,500 were part of 659 multiple-point pastoral charges.

If the United Church were uniform, one would expect to find that the people and financial resources of single-point pastoral charges would equal multiple-point pastoral charges.

In the chart, the two blue bars are the single-point pastoral charges. The light blue bar shows the 300 congregations with the highest average worship attendance, while the dark blue bar represents the remaining 1,200 single-point charges. The orange bar represents all 1,500 multiple-point congregations.

The total money raised by the light blue group is 65 percent higher than the total for all multiple-point pastoral charges combined. In fact, in almost every Year Book measurement, the top 300 congregations exceed the total of the multiple-point pastoral charges.

Make no mistake: a congregation in the top 300 is not better than a multiple-point congregation. Each will have its own strengths and challenges — but very different strengths and very different challenges.

Given the magnitude of the differences, I wonder if we don’t need to imagine ourselves, not as a United Church, but as a Trinitarian Church — one in three and three in one: (1) large single-point pastoral charges; (2) medium and small single-point pastoral charges; and (3) multiple-point pastoral charges.

I wonder if we have the capacity to imagine different ways of being church for each grouping? And to provide different resources and supports for each of them?

Whatever else can be made of this data, it is certainly clear that there is no such thing as a “typical” United Church congregation. Whenever we talk about congregations, we need to be very clear just what sort of congregation we are imagining.

David Ewart,www.davidewart.ca

This "Reality Check" column first appeared in the March 2014 issue of the United Church Observer,http://www.ucobserver.org/opinion/2014/03/reality_check.

Click here for an easy to email or print Adobe PDF version of this post.

I was surprised and somewhat puzzled by your opinion piece published in The Vancouver Sun in response to Gretta Vosper.

I found the internal logic of your argument somewhat difficult to follow, and your assumptions about the history and ethos of the United Church misinformed. For example, your linking of Gretta Vosper's atheism with The United Church's support for LGBTQ2S+ is false and misleading.

"Some of their Baby Boomer forebears in mainline denominations in Canada may have thought that to be more inclusive to the historically excluded gay or lesbian person, First Nations person or other excluded minority, they should tear down historic Christian doctrine."

It is true that you can find both trickles of "tearing down historic Christian doctrine" and mighty streams of justice "to be more inclusive" within The United Church. But it is false to imply that affirming "inclusion" is based on anything other than our call as a Christian church to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ.

And The United Church has not been more decisive in dealing with Vosper's atheism not because of "anxiety," but because of historic conundrums built into the foundations of our church.

"Vosper has long used her denomination’s anxiety over her “beliefs” as a lever to sell her bad books."

My observation of The United Church is that you can detect our identity in our adverbs and adjectives, not in our nouns and verbs. Or in the way our nouns and verbs often leave unstated alternatives. Facility at using language this way was required to overcome the contradictions that the United Church had to finesse in order to allow Presbyterians (well, 2/3rds of them), Methodists, and Congregationalists to become a single, united, church.

For example, before a candidate is ordained: "The Conference shall examine each Candidate on the Statement of Doctrine of the United Church and shall, before ordination, commissioning, or admission, be satisfied that such Candidate is in essential agreement therewith, and as a member of the Order of Ministry of the United Church accepts the statement as being in substance agreeable to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures." I have often joked that this means candidates will be rejected for ordination if they are in substantial agreement with the Statement of Doctrine. We only want conditional, qualified, agreement. And notice the nuance that the Statement of Doctrine itself is NOT "in substance agreeable" to Holy Scripture, but to the TEACHINGS of Holy Scripture. There is no King James authorized text of teachings - only the vast, conflicted, history of Christians seeking to faithfully interpret and follow the desire of God. And it is in this history that The United Church happily has a home.

And for another example, our Basis of Union, Article II, Of Revelation, does NOT say that the Bible IS “the only infallible rule of faith and life, a faithful record of God’s gracious revelations, and as the sure witness of Christ,” but that the Scriptures CONTAINS these. Somewhat like the warning that a chocolate bar may contain nuts, this wording assures us that indeed the only infallible rule of faith and life is contained in Scripture, but it also suggests the unstated possibility that maybe scripture contains something else. Our doctrine of revelation is actually a doctrine of hermeneutics: There is no direct, unmediated, “Word.” God’s self revelations are gracious not directive; not inerrantly guided; not absent of our own freely given participation / discerning / learning. And because humans are frail, and finite, and faulty all of our discernings and learnings are provisional and in constant need of re-examination. “Meaning” is always contextual.

The word “contains” is what has enabled the United Church, from its foundation, not just from its Baby Boomers, to engage with Scripture as primary and foundational, but not as closed and final revelation. And so. Contrary to Scripture, The United Church affirms the equality, leadership, and ordination of women. Contrary to Scripture, The United Church affirms birth control, divorce and re-marriage, and abortion. Contrary to Scripture, The United Church affirms the equality, leadership, and ordination of LGBTQ2S+ persons. Contrary to Scripture, The United Church affirms modern science and its discoveries, among others, about the cosmos, evolution, and climate change. And. Guided by Scripture, The United Church has a long history of not only welcoming the outcast, but of also seeking systemic change to overthrow powers and privileges that create "outcasts." We want justice as well as charity. And so The United Church, among other things, affirms universal health care, free high quality public education, progressive income tax policies that mitigate wealth inequity, strong labour laws and workers rights.

With all respect Jason, you misname what is going on. It is not the historic doctrines of the Trinity, Christology, the sacraments, and so on that enable God’s welcome of the outcast. It is the courage to continually enact the Good News that the time is fulfilled and the Kin_dom of God is at hand. And sometimes that gospel means proclaiming, “You have heard it said, but I say ...” Personal salvation and a transforming relation with Jesus are not the fullness of the Good News. Nor is welcoming the outcast. Jesus was not brutally tortured and publicly executed because he preached the goodness of providing soup lines. His apocalyptic teachings remind us that transforming from our present politics to the Kin_dom of God will require more than a few minor tax and trade policy amendments. We are facing apocalyptic climate change. I pray, for Christ's sake, that you are preparing leaders who have more to offer than sacraments and a personal relationship with Jesus.

When The United Church was founded, it created a hybridized church that was non-creedal and without bishops. And so in The United Church no individual ever has authority - only committees do. This means that authority is always exercised ad hoc - which can be courageous and precedent setting at some times; routine at others; and whimsical, capricious, and horrible at others. For United Church polity, it means that authority is never mentored; there is no learning from experience; there is no colleagueship; there is no institutional memory; and perhaps most significantly there is little or no accountability - committees meet, act, and disperse; it is virtually impossible to hold that group accountable for their actions. You instinctively responded to this reality by appointing yourself our pope for a day - our polity simply does not authorize any individual - even the Moderator - to "be the voice" of the church. The Moderator can only repeat statements and policies that committees have already passed.

If you really want to get to know and love The United Church, you should re-visit the Vosper announcement and research, "Who is 'Toronto Conference'?" Who were the individuals that were "Toronto Conference?" How were they appointed? To whom are they accountable? By what polity were they acting?

And because our founding, 1925 motto is "That all may be one," and because of our commitment to non-creedalism, it is in our DNA to encourage and welcome unhindered exploration of ideas: Why can't an atheist be an ordained minister, you may well ask? And you may wonder: How can a church that, in principle, does not require anyone to adhere to any creed remove a minister for her beliefs?

And because a strong commitment to "the social gospel" has also been a core component of our DNA, it is true that The United Church is particularly vulnerable to the error of the "social gospel" transforming into "virtue ethics." It is this error that Gretta Vosper - and a small number of others - have made. But it is also this genetic origin that gives Vosper the sense that she is a legitimate child - and heir - of The United Church. In 1925, no one imagined that any atheist in her right mind would insist on the right and propriety of being an ordained minister. And so there is no efficient polity for responding to her.

So if you put together our founding DNA of encouraging open exploration of ideas, of understanding all knowledge as provisional, of not requiring anyone to adhere to any creed, of commitment to the social gospel, and of no mentored authority, you can see how someone like Gretta Vosper was able to exploit the finesse that created The United Church.

Finally, let’s be clear that Vosper does not represent her generation. Baby Boomers have been around long enough that it is time for a new generation to have a go at making the world a better place. But your comment in the article about Boomers reminded me of Jack Weinberg's phrase that briefly became a motto of the 60's: "Don't trust anyone over 30." Given how that worked out, I'm not sure I'd recommend repeating it as a strategy for change. Boomers threw out a lot of important, hard-earned wisdom of their elders.

Your article has resulted in a lot of interesting conversations with some of my colleagues. So I am writing this to you as an open letter which I will share with them - and will give permission for them to share as they wish as well. I will even post it on my blog, www.davidewart.ca.

I'd be happy to meet in person if you would like to explore this further.

All the best,David Ewart.

Permission is granted for non-profit sharing and use of these materials, provided the source is acknowledged as, "David Ewart, www.davidewart.ca"

November 15, 2018

From its earliest days the Christian church has had a pretty compelling reason for everyone to go to church: damnation and hellfire. Not baptized? Off to hell you go. Haven't accepted Jesus as your Lord and Saviour? Say "Hello" to Satan. The mission of the church is personal salvation. And personal salvation is a pretty compelling reason for the church to do everything it can to reach you. And for you to say, "Yes."

But in more recent years, some churches have discovered other missions.

One was to end the embarrassment of so many different Christian denominations. After all, isn't a direct quote from the Bible the prayer of Jesus that "all might be one." It is: John 17:21. So here and there, a few like the United Church of Canada set church union as a prime mission. Coming to church so that all might be one has a nice Canadian feeling to it. But it's not quite as compelling a reason as avoiding eternal damnation. And that "oneness" feeling can be found in quite a few other locations. And at more convenient times. No need to go to church for that reason.

A second mission that some churches have discovered is "the Social Gospel." The Social Gospel is based on simply noticing that Jesus spends most of his time with and for the poor, the outcasts, the ill, the socially despised. And so the mission of the church is to be "the hands and feet of Christ." We are to be like Jesus doing good in the world for others. Social justice is compelling. There are some appalling inequities and threats to global life that need our urgent action. But social justice compels us to be in the world, not in church. And actually no one needs to go to church to discover the many needs for justice. In fact, it can be a lot less complicated to be good without also having a "god" to try and make sense of. Going to church is just extra overhead that is not really needed.

So. If you start preaching that God's grace means I won't be sent to Hell, what is the compelling reason I should go to church?

David Ewart,www.davidewart.ca

Note: I hope that those who know me will wonder if there isn't in this post an appreciative, non-ironical, reference to some aspects of the questions the Rev. Gretta Vosper, www.grettavosper.ca, raises. There is. I even almost quote her book title, "Good without God."

Permission is granted for non-profit use of these materials provided the source is acknowledged as, "David Ewart, www.davidewart.ca."

July 26, 2018

Isn’t it interesting that our human brain has evolved so that it is constantly talking to itself? Our brain is constantly telling itself a story about what it is experiencing.

A few years ago I read an interesting article on resilience.

Researchers are interested in how different people experience trauma differently from one another. Two people have the same traumatic experience. One then has life-long PTSD. The other changes, learns, grows, recovers. One is traumatized. The other is resilient.

One way of describing this difference is that one person constantly RE-LIVES the experience; while the other person learns how to RE-CALL the experience without reliving it. Their response to a trigger is, “Oh, that reminds me …” They have quite literally RE-MINDED themselves by developing a whole new set of neural pathways in their brains that mute RE-LIVING and switch on RE-CALLING.

When we talk to ourselves, we tell ourselves stories.

What we call “TRAUMA” is when something bad happens that doesn’t fit into any of the stories we have been telling ourselves. Our daily news is full of these events. A child is shot and killed while enjoying a warm summer evening. A truck smashes into a hockey team’s bus. A heat wave kills 70 people.

The Bible is also full of such events. And then, as now, people ask, “WHY?” Why did this happen? This makes no sense. It doesn’t fit any of the stories I tell myself about God; about life’s meaning; life’s purpose. A tyrant kills innocent, unarmed people. A tower unexpectedly collapses and kills bystanders who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. WHY?

Talk to me Jesus. Tell me why this happened. How can I believe in God when senseless bad things happen? Tell me a story, Jesus. Help me to stop feeling so helpless, and hopeless, and tired, and angry, and sad.

I’m guessing I am not the only one here today who has felt this way.

What could Jesus possibly say that would make sense of suffering?

Well, about 150 years ago, Charles Darwin, wrote a book, On the Origin of Species, that offered a new story about why things are the way they are.

You’ll notice that Darwin’s book has an interesting sub-title: “The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

That should give everyone pause before uncritically swallowing Darwin’s theory. Just stop and recall how “The Preservation of Favoured Races” is functioning in today’s politics. But that’s another sermon.

Darwin made the observation that just as humans have been selectively breeding new dogs, cats, cows, and corn for centuries; nature has also been creating new species for millions, no billions, of years. The amazing diversity of life forms that we see around us is the result of natural selection, nature’s own breeding program.

Darwin’s theory is pretty much universally accepted today. Even most religious people do not see evolution as contrary to belief in God, or as undermining believing the Bible “as containing the only infallible rule of faith and life.” (As The United Church of Canada’s founding Articles of Faith put it in 1925.)

And here at Canadian Memorial you have even made a point of highlighting evolution: Evolutionary Christian Spirituality

But what is the story that evolution tells us when bad things happen? What could evolution possibly say that would make sense of suffering?

Evolution – and all of Western science – says this about suffering:Most things happen according to the laws of nature

My father was killed in an accident when I was three. When I ask science why he was killed, science says, “A train travelling at this speed in this direction, and a car travelling at this speed in this direction will arrive at the same location at the same time.” Laws of gravity and momentum are the reason my father died.

Science also says this about suffering:Some things happen randomly

My older sister died of cancer when she was a 23-year-old mother of two. When I ask science why she died, science says, “Cancer is a random mutation of a cell in your sister’s body.” Random mutations are the engine of evolution. Evolution is the reason my sister died.

I’m guessing I’m not the only one here today who agrees with science, but also believes there is more to this story than science can tell.

What can be said to try and make sense of tragedy and suffering? What stories does our Christian faith and tradition offer us?

“God has a plan” is probably the most commonly used story to explain why bad things happen. Personally, I think it is a really bad story. “Plan” means “intended,” and “caused.” It also suggests, “no other possibility.” So. You mean to say that from the beginning of time, God had it PLANNED that my father and sister were going to die, and there was no possibility something different might have happened. If that’s who God is, I’m not sure I want to believe in God.

So let’s stop a bit, and think again about the stories we tell ourselves to make sense of suffering.

Let’s start with God. And let’s start by recalling that Christians do not believe in God.

Okay, okay. I know Christians are always going on about “God.” But actually, Christians believe in The Trinity.

“God” is NOT a singularity. God is not a noun that suggests a Someone that exists somewhere in time and space. Christians don’t believe this.

Christians believe that “God” is actually a community, a Holy Three who are One.

And the defining characteristic of this Holy Three is their dynamic relationship. When Christians tell stories about God, we tell about a community, not an isolated individual. We tell about a dynamic relationship, not unchanging identity. We tell about a verb, not a noun. And that verb is “Love-that-is-Justice.” We worship The Holy Trinity who are what Love-that-is-Justice1 is.

Now before we go on, there is one more thing we must go back and correct. Christians do not believe in The Trinity either.

Well we do, sort of. But the problem is with the word “believe.” The English meaning of this word has changed over the centuries since the Bible was first translated into English. It has come to mean that I have a personal OPINION. That I agree with a certain set of ideas. And so the word, “believe,” no longer accurately translates the original Biblical word which means: TRUST, BOND WITH, BE LOYAL.

Christians don’t “believe” in The Trinity, we TRUST The Trinity.

Well, how does a story of trusting Love-that-is-Justice make sense of suffering?

The love of The Holy Trinity is always consistent. It is not capricious. Is never distracted. Doesn’t fall asleep or forget. Doesn’t love somebody else more.

The love of The Holy Trinity is always all-in. Holds nothing back. Expects nothing in return. There are no conditions. No contracts. No pre-screenings or prior approvals.

The love of The Holy Trinity is always totally for the good of the other. Is never selfish. Is never self-centred.

The love of The Holy Trinity is always for right relations of all things with all things. It seeks for all of creation to embody the dynamic Love-that-is-Justice that it is. It seeks relationships that are always both loving and just.

The love of The Holy Trinity has all the power that love has. It never controls or coerces. It rejoices in the freedom of the other; in the beauty of their autonomy, and integrity, and wholeness. It never uses force or threats. Never over-rules.

I don’t know about you, but I can say, “Amen,” to this story. So far.

But there is a trick here. A catch that you might not like. Notice that I did NOT say, “The Holy Trinity has all the power,” period.

In one way or another, God’s over-arching power is too often used to try and make sense of suffering. But this is NON-sense. If God has all the power, then God also has all the responsibility either for causing or allowing suffering. If that is who God is, then I’m not sure I want to believe in God.

But if God is what Love is, then God cannot have all the power, because love requires freedom. If there is no freedom, there cannot be love.

And here’s the catch. Freedom is another word for randomness. Random things happen, not because there is no love. Rather, random things happen because love requires freedom.

Love cannot be love without freedom, without randomness.

But here is the hard part.

Random things are not just. Are not fair. Are not deserved. Have no purpose. Have no meaning. They happen for no reason.

Our story has arrived at a contradiction; an impossible possibility.The Holy Trinity is Love-that-is-Justice Love requires freedom / randomness that is not just

We trust that The Holy Trinity is Love-that-is-Justice. But love requires freedom. And freedom means that things can happen that are random / undeserved / unfair / unjust.

So how does the story of a God who is a Trinity, a community, a dynamic relationship, a verb that is what Love-that-is-Justice is help us to make sense of suffering? Help us make sense of underserved bad things?

In my experience, it is not possible to make SENSE of suffering, to explain it. It is not possible to make suffering reasonable.

In my experience, all attempts to explain suffering just make me more angry; because the reasons used to explain it just makes it clearer that the suffering is unjustified, unfair, undeserved.

But also in my experience, the story of the Verb that is what Love-that-is-Justice is, HOLDS my suffering.

It lets me experience my suffering without forever re-living the trauma of it. One never gets through it, or over it. But we do learn to hold it. To learn, and grow, and heal, and go on. We learn to be resilient.

And I also trust another truth that will also have to be another sermon.

I trust that the activity of Love-that-is-Justice is NOT constrained to this time and place. The suffering that we experience here and now is real. Is outrageously real. And. But. Our experience here and now is not the end of the story. Because there is more "here and now" than we can experience here and now.

That’s been my experience. I’ve learned that the Love-that-is-Justice of The Trinity can be trusted.

I wonder if I am the only person here today who has learned this trust? I pray that being part of this community is an opportunity to learn and experience this love, this freedom, this justice, and this trust.

May it be so. Amen.

David Ewart.

This sermon was originally preached at Canadian Memorial United Church of Canada, Vancouver, BC, July 29, 2018.

Permission is granted to use all or part of these materials for non-profit use. Please acknowledge the source as, "David Ewart, www.davidewart.ca/2018/07/can-god-be-trusted.html"

-----

1 I use the phrase "Love-that-is-Justice" because I want to ensure that we recall that God's love is always about right relationships; relationships that are always both loving and just.

February 12, 2015

The following charts compare selected data for the United Church of Canada compared with similar data for Canada’s population as a whole.

The comparison shows how Canadians as a whole are participating in the United Church of Canada, and suggests possible changes in Canadian culture as a whole.

Rates of participation by Canadians in the United Church of Canada as shown by Membership, Baptisms, Weddings, and Funerals have all shown steady decline since at least the mid-1960’s with the exception of a temporary increase from 1980-1990 as the Baby Boom Generation returned with their children.These trends have been noted for all churches (including evangelical ones) throughout North America. Secular volunteer agencies also report similar declines.

The charts indicate that the religious rituals of weddings, baptisms, and funerals are in decline as an increasingly secular and “spiritual, but not religious” culture no longer looks to organized religion for these life-changing transitions.

Clearly the United Church is not “of” Canada. Perhaps it is time for a change of name.

As I have noted elsewhere, we may be united but we are definitely not uniform (United But Not Uniform). In fact, the differences between the 10% of the largest urban churches, the 50% of rural multi-point Pastoral Charges, and the 40% of remaining single-point Pastoral Charges is so great that I wonder if we shouldn’t call ourselves the Church of the Holy Trinity.

Click here for an easy to print and email Adobe PDF version of this post. The PDF file contains additional information about each of the charts below.

February 02, 2015

I use the Microsoft Excel TREND function. I do so because it does in fact give a good indication of the general direction of change, and because as a straight line it is easy to understand. Whatever the future holds, it will not unfold in a straight line, but a straight line is useful for clarifying the general direction we are headed.

And it is important to understand what a trend is NOT.

1. A trend is NOT a single example. A trend looks at a history of events – the more the better – and summarizes the overall change.

There will always be examples that contradict the overall trend. Because that is precisely what a summary is; it is roughly the average with examples that are better than the trend, and examples that are worse than the trend. And so, a trend is not proven false by examples that are “bucking the trend.”

But because a trend is not a single example, it can also help answer one big question: Is it just us? Are we the only ones experiencing this problem?

Ever since the 1990’s, every congregation I have been part of has worried about the decline of Sunday School enrollment. And we tried every new program that promised to fix this problem. They were all good programs and helped us make many helpful and necessary changes. But our enrollment continued to steadily shrink. If only we’d had the wits to ask, “Is it just us?” And if only someone had shown us a chart of United Church Sunday School enrollment, then we might have seen that we were part of a larger trend, and began to ask different questions – and seek new ways of responding to the changes happening in Canadian society.

2. A trend is NOT a prediction of the future. It is an analysis of the present and recent past.

For example, suppose that ten years ago, your congregation had set a goal to increase average worship attendance from 65 to 100. Suppose the results for those 10 years was, 65, 86, 98, 121, 115, 116, 110, 112, 103, 102. This is great news as the goal was achieved quickly and is still above 100 at the end of 10 years. And the overall trend, shown as the dotted green line, is quite promising.

But what is the trend of the past 5 years? Are we still tending in the general direction of achieving our goal? This trend, shown as the dotted red line, is more worrisome.

Both trends are correct as showing the overall direction of change for 10 and 5 years. Projecting them into the future helps give a sense of whether we are moving in a desired direction or not. But.

The question to ask about these two trends is not: Which is correct? The question to ask is: What factors created the overall trends? And.

When searching for factors that may have created the overall trend, it is crucial to look at factors OUTSIDE the church as well as inside. For example, it may very well be that a change of leadership in the church was a key turning point. Or perhaps this is a small town and a major employer has shut down.

Which leads to my third point about trends.

3. A trend is NOT just about the United Church. It is also about changes in Canadian society and our neighbourhoods.

It is my strong conviction that when we look at United Church charts and trends and only ask:What did we do wrong?We are asking the wrong question. And so end up trying to solve the wrong problems.

If we only ask about what we did wrong, we will spend fruitless time, energy, and money trying to fix ourselves: get a new minister; get an overhead projector; get a new choir director; get a new board structure; etc., etc. But these solutions don’t work over the long term because they are trying to solve the wrong question. They are trying to solve only one half of the whole question.

The question we must also ask is:How has Canadian society and our neighbourhood changed?

There is no single source to present graphs of all the ways Canadian society has changed over the decades. There are many sources. Too many for me to gather here. But here is my quick summary:

There has been a huge population shift from rural to urban.

There has been increased diversity of ethnicities and their languages, cultures, religions, and values.

There has been increased secularization of the public realm, and privatization of religion as a personal opinion. Religion is no longer publicly valued and is often characterized as problematic.

There has been increased web-based social networking and decreased real-time face-to-face community-based networking.

Initial gains of increased wealth across all sectors has shifted to concentration of wealth amongst the wealthiest and a decrease amongst the middle and lower classes. This results in more adults – and teens – working more and having less time and money for volunteer organizations.

There has been a shift from volunteer participation to consumer purchasing of services. Membership in volunteer organizations of all types has declined and grown older, and organizations have increasingly relied less on volunteers and more on paid staff. Sunday School is one of the last remaining non-fee based organized children’s programs.

With the exception of congregations populated by recent immigrants, there has been an across the board decline in religious organizations of all faiths and theological spectrums. People are not being religious like they used to. They are not going to church / synagogue / mosque / temple like they used to – and this trend applies to second and third generation immigrant populations.

So when we look at these graphs and trends, the right questions to ask are:

What are we doing wrong? What can we learn from congregations that are “bucking the trend?” From non-United Church sources such as Natural Church Development? Maybe we should get an overhead projector or Wi-Fi, or allow coffee in worship? Or maybe we should become more intentional about inviting ourselves, our friends, neighbours, and strangers to openly commit to Jesus and to following his way? Or maybe we should become spiritual but not religious? Or maybe we should sell the building and use the proceeds to …? Or?

Who are our neighbours now? What might be our ministry with and to them? What sustenance might we receive from them that will nurture the health of our faith community?

Given the changes in Canadian society how might we expect those changes to impact the United Church? Does our experience confirm or question those expectations?

Given that changes in Canadian society are not a problem that we can fix – and are not our fault – how can we best respond to them in ways that are faithful to the Gospel of Christ and also practically sustainable for the next generations? Some of the areas that come to mind where specific responses are needed are:

Given that people are just not going to church like they used to, what do we do with the over-capacity of our existing buildings?

Given that people are not volunteering like they used to, what forms of organization can we adopt to use less volunteer time more effectively and with greater pay off in service and satisfaction?

Given that people are not donating like they used to, what sustainable balance of revenue streams (donations, grants, bequests, rentals, investments, advertising, new monastic income sharing, etc.) and expenses will support life-changing, service-oriented, Gospel communities?

Given that people are using the internet to connect and communicate in new ways, how does the church change the ways we connect and communicate – including changing the qualities and locations of our face-to-face gatherings?

To re-cap. Remember what a trend is not:

A trend is NOT a single example. A trend looks at a history of events – the more the better – and summarizes the overall change.

A trend is NOT a prediction of the future. It is an analysis of the present and recent past.

A trend is NOT just about the United Church. It is also about changes in Canadian society and our neighbourhood.

Use charts of United Church Year Book data to expand and sharpen the questions you are asking about your situation as a congregation. Without the right questions, you will try and solve the wrong problems.And widen the conversation as far as possible. Within your own congregation, but also with as many neighbours and neighbouring congregations as will join in. Jesus has promised to be present when we gather in his name. I am sure that God is not done with us yet.

OK, now that the shocking headline has captured your attention, let me explain why it is both true and not all the truth.

Those of us who can remember the United Church before 1990, are very aware that the church which expanded its number of congregations as well as its Conference and General Council staff, programs and policies during the 50’s and into the 80’s is already mostly gone. The structures of the United Church have been significantly cut back, and yet are still too costly of volunteer time, energy, and money. The way we used to “do” church is on its death bed. That is the truth of the headline.

But the rest of the truth about the United Church is that our particular hearing of the Gospel of Jesus Christ – and our calling to form communities of faith centred on that calling – are probably more needed now than ever. And so perhaps a more accurate headline might be:

Our Governance is Dead. Long Live the Gospel!

Or:

The Buildings Have Burned to the Ground. The Community Has Taken Off!

The charts that follow (click here for PDF file with charts) show the steady decades-long decline of the United Church. And that is the truth of the headline. But the rest of the truth is that actually the charts show how Canada has changed. Canadians just don’t go to church like they used to. And not just the United Church – all churches. And actually all mosques, synagogues, and temples too. And actually all of the old volunteer community organizations too: Rotarians, Kiwanians, Shriners, Masons, etc.

This change in Canadian society is not our fault – and is not a problem that we can fix. But it is a situation that we can and must respond to. But in order to meet the challenges we are already facing, we are going to have to learn how to be much smaller, and much clearer about why and how the Gospel is at the centre of everything we do as a community – including why and how we believe face-to-face communities sustained-over-time are needed.

Think I’m exaggerating? Consider these key data about people and the United Church:

I haven’t chosen these data because they are among the most startling, but because I think they are the figures that help us best understand how Canadians are interacting with the United Church. And the declines from 1990 to 2013, along with a forecast of where we might be at in 2025, are startling.

I realize the future will not unfold in a straight line, but the actual real declines in the past decades ought to be alerting us to the reality that significant change is already upon us – and more is needed for the future.

January 13, 2015

In Response to Her Open Letter to The Rev. Gary Paterson, Moderator of the United Church of Canada.

If Ms. Vosper’s ideas weren’t so dangerous, it would be tempting to read her letter with quiet amazement at her naiveté and click on the next Internet prophet with celebrity to be sought and a book to be sold. Ah, the sweet bliss of continuing to believe in an 18th Century ideology that the path to world peace lies in a single solution: get rid of religion.

Evidence that this ideology is false and dangerous can be seen in the bloody aftermath of its first proclamation in France’s Revolution: The Reign of Terror. Unfortunately this was only the beginning of non-religious ideological war, genocide and mass starvations. Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Amin. Mugabe, and too many others have caused far more death and destruction than the current terror that we mis-attribute solely to religion.

Ms. Vosper also says that we should all stop believing in ideas about God that almost no one in the United Church actually believes anyway. So I’m puzzled as to how we can respond to her demand. Ms. Vosper seems to make the mistake of assuming that her ideas about God are identical with the actual reality of God. Therefore, if her ideas about God are juvenile and unbelievable, then God must be an infantile fantasy that we must learn to outgrow.

But she overlooks the glaringly obvious alternative that while it is true that her ideas about God are juvenile, there are centuries of conversations about the reality of God that provide mature, rich and nuanced experiences and expressions of God. I am happy to belong to the God believing United Church precisely because it is a home to these conversations.

And while I appreciate Ms. Vosper’s call for the United Church to act with greater clarity and integrity based on its core convictions, I can’t help but wonder what sort of example she herself is setting. Perhaps she uses the rationale of being a provocateur from within the institution, but wouldn’t her personal integrity be far more clearly demonstrated by admitting she is no longer in accordance with the church’s understanding of her ordination vows. And take the steps to leave the United Church? As things stand right now, I feel a bit like someone who has covenanted with a partner “to be faithful to you alone,” who insists that they are still honouring the covenant while having affairs. It’s just that I need to open my understanding of what that covenant means. Hmm. Well, let’s have that conversation after we have terminated the original covenant. (And just so you know ahead of time, I’m not really interested in your idea of what “faithful” means.)

I hope Ms. Vosper’s book sells well. I also hope she ceases promoting it by speaking so dangerously.

June 10, 2014

To celebrate our 89th Anniversary in the midst of the current process of reforming our collective identity, let's change our founding text from John 17:21 to Matthew 28:17. Seriously.

This verse from Matthew is not some incidental, by-the-way, side comment about riff-raff. This verse describes the initial response of the core disciples when they first encounter Jesus now resurrected.

Ought we not lift this up as a paradigm of how communities of faith today might respond to the Good News of resurrection?

AND doubt with curiosity and openness. Doubt with confidence that expects and enjoys uncertainty and ambiguity. Doubt that wonders. Doubt that challenges unexamined opinion and self-righteousness. Doubt that drags us toward truth and confession. Doubt that knows we do not yet fully embody all that God dreams for us to become. Doubt that has the courage to leave the beloved familiar for the desired undetermined future.

Let's Be Like Them

Seriously. Isn't it time to ground ourselves in a new text? So why not ground ourselves in the first responses of the first disciples? Let's be like them. I know I'd like to belong to a community that both worships and doubts.

So let's start a national campaign to have the General Council 2015 adopt a new motto and change our crest:

Et Adoraverunt Quidam Autem Dubitaverunt.Matthew 28:17

(I'm no Latin scholar so this is Google's translation of "They worshiped him, but some doubted." Others who actually know Latin will have to provide the translation that captures the nuances.)

In Canada, the period following 1945 was characterized by three “Booms:” A Marriage Boom; a Baby Boom; and an Urban Boom. Following a decade of economic depression in the 1930’s and six years of war, Canadians migrated from the rural areas where they had grown up into the cities; they got jobs; got married; settled down; and had babies.

And like migrant populations today, urban and suburban churches served as social hubs: places for connecting, belonging, forming community. Sunday School populations mushroomed. Children were baptized in record numbers.

In order for children to baptized, one or both of the parents must be full members of the congregation. And so for a variety reasons: desire to have one’s child baptized, desire to join a community after moving to a new place, or even genuine religious experience, Professions of Faith1 also rose rapidly during this period.

Notice how similar the chart for Professions of Faith looks like the chart for Baptisms. And notice that both peaked in 1958, not 1965.

What happened in 1958? The Baby Boom reached its peak. And the first of the Boomers turned 12 and were graduating from Grade 6. So potentially two factors came into play. The first is that parents were no longer Professing their Faith as part of having their first child baptized. The second is that as the first of the Baby Boom generation became teenagers, they began to leave Sunday School and other church programs. Not all of them of course. But then as now, when children stop participating in church activities, the parents almost always also stop.

So why didn’t Membership peak in 1958 instead of 1965?

To understand this it is important to remember that when someone joins the church they remain a member for life. So membership only declines if people die or quit in greater numbers than people become new members. And so, even though Professions of Faith peaked in 1958, the total number of Members should still grow – even at a slower pace – unless Members have also been leaving.

In the United Church, Membership changes in two ways: 1) Added by: a) Profession of Faith (Become a member of a church for the first time.) b) Received by Transfer In (Membership is transferred from another church.) 2) Removed by: a) Death b) Removed by Transfer Out (Membership is transferred to another church. This category also includes Members who are simply removed from the Membership Roll by action of the church governing body.)

There is no process for confirming that a person who requests a transfer to be removed from one congregation actually does join a new congregation. And as the chart below shows, there are always more Members being Removed than being Received.

As can be seen from the above chart, the net loss of Members usually hovers around 10,000 per year.

The period from 1963 to 1979 saw these losses approach 30,000 a few times. David K. Shearman in a post on WonderCafe2 has wondered if this wasn’t the result of a policy passed by the 1962 General Council that allowed Sessions to remove Members who had been inactive for three or more years. Apart from wishing to clean up its Membership Roll by removing those who were no longer active, congregations were motivated to remove inactive Members because many Presbyteries raised money for their budgets by a per Member assessment. If this explanation is correct, what is happening here is not a loss of currently active Members. Rather it is correcting official records to show historic realities: these Members left some time ago – perhaps in the years around 1958? However, if this were the case, one might expect that the number of Non-Resident Members3 would be reduced as these are people who have already been designated as inactive. As the chart below shows, the number of Non-Resident Members actually grew during this period. So perhaps the decline starting in 1965 was not just “cleaning up the Membership Rolls,” but an actual loss of people who had been active in their congregations?4

There is another dip for 1988 to 1993 in the chart, “United Church Net Membership Changes by Received and Removed 1945 - 2012.” Might this be a result of the 1988 General Council that agreed that sexual orientation would not be a bar to ordination?

It is a bit messy to show in one chart, but if we show the results of new Members added by Professions of Faith and those lost by Deaths and Transfers, this is what it looks like:

Notice that the Net Change of Members peaked in 1958. In 7 years, the United Church went from adding 25,000 to its Total Membership to zero in 1965.

Members removed by death remains fairly constant at about 10,000 per year. And from 1945 to the early 1960’s, the difference between Transfers Out and Transfers In hovered above -10,000. But this combined loss of 20,000 Members was more than made up by Professions of Faith, and so total Membership continued to increase. But from 1965 onward, the number of people leaving the church has not been made up by new Professions of faith, and so the total number of Members has declined – fluctuating between -10,000 to -20,000 per year since 1990.

So what happened in 1965?

Well actually the change started in 1958.

Not only did parents no longer join the church for the first time in the same numbers, they began to leave in greater numbers as their children graduated from Grade 6. And as Baby Boomers came of age they did not join the church – did not make Professions of Faith – in sufficient numbers to off-set the number leaving. It took seven years for the impact to be seen in the Total number of Members, but the turning in 1958 was swift and significant.

Baby Boomers were notorious for being anti-institutions in their 20’s. We can see a change in how Canadians participate in religious practices by charting United Church baptisms, marriages and funerals as a percentage of the total number of Canadians born, married, and deceased.

Now it could be that the declines in the charts are only that Canadians were going to other church for these services. But I suspect that in fact, these declines reflect an overall shift in Canadian society:

People have stopped going to church like they (briefly) used to.

In 1945, they stopped getting married in church. In 1955 they stopped having children baptized. In 1970, they stopped having funerals in church.

Whatever happened in 1965 had its roots back in 1958 and longer. Because one thing is clear, the boom from 1945 to 1958 did not result in people making a solid, life-changing, life-long experience of participating in a community of faith. The connection between personal spirituality and collective religious practices was not made.

Why was the connection not made? Not because of a failure on the part of congregations.

Just as the boom from 1945 to 1958 was largely a phenomenon of the wider culture in which church participation served broader social ends, so too the “decline” from 1958 onwards was simply a reflection of the place of the church in the existing culture. And that place was, by and large, secondary to other concerns.

Whatever our future is, it cannot be a repeat of the boom years, 1945 to 1958.

David Ewart,www.davidewart.ca

Permission is granted for non-profit use of these materials provided the source is acknowledged as, "David Ewart, www.davidewart.ca."

1. People join the church for the first time by making a public profession of their faith during worship.

2. “An Explanation of Church Membership Decline,” http://www.wondercafe.ca/blogs/dks/explanation-church-membership-decline. In his article Shearman refers to Dr. Phyllis Airhart’s book, “A Church with the Soul of a Nation: Making and Remaking the United Church of Canada.” Shearman’s article is what prompted my own look back at 1965.

3. “Non-Resident Members” is a designation congregation’s use to refer to Members who are no longer active, but who have not requested to be Transferred or Removed from the Membership Roll of the congregation.